• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney thinks Teacher's Unions shouldn't be able to contribute to campaigns

poweRob said:
Don't yank my chain man... my chain is too thenthative. lol

yeah... I know that I've got some work to do on my lefty fellows about that. The righties are just as inconsistent though when they hate on unions giving money then call corporate donations "constitutionally protected free speech" in damn near the same breath.
Click to expand...

damn skippy...
 
Just another facet of the GOP's attempts to eliminate any group that doesn't favor them from the election process. If you buy that tax payers paying their salary enables a curtailment of teachers' rights, why stop there? Why should they be allowed to vote at all if the public owns their right to political expression? Of course, you will never hear any mention of limiting the ability of one group of government employees from contributing in any way they want: the military. Because the biggest hogs at the government trough tend to be conservative they are given a free pass.
 
Mitt's right only in that the teacher's unions shouldn't exist to donate. However, if we are to accept this evil's existence, we can't apply the rules to one bastion of greed that we don't apply to the others. If corporations can donate, unions should be able to, as well.
 
Fisher said:
Generally speaking, strong unions in an area drive down wages for non-union workers in the area. It is just a correlation that has been observed by economists.

I am not aware of instances where teachers unions have gone on strike to save the music. I know several teachers and what they like to complain about is that they have to work such long hours for the solid middle class income they make that is not enough for the 9 months a year they work; that they have too many students (which I totally agree with); or the number of days a school year they are being forced to work. If teachers in my area were to strike for art or music programs, I'd bring them doughnuts and march with them. Sadly, that is just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

how about offering a cite to substantiate this claim
 
ThePlayDrive said:
This is funny because the things that public workers often seek to accomplish through their unions benefit the public in the long term.
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah. Because bankruptcy is good for localities and states :lol:

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
 
cpwill said:
:lol: yeah. Because bankruptcy is good for localities and states :lol:

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Click to expand...

And who bankrupted the USA as a state?

HINT: look at WHO created the financial crises - and WHO received the trillions of dollars in bail outs and subsidies)

You do have a habit of pushing yourself into a contradictory and self-defeating corner dont you mr cpwill
 
Thrilla said:
...except refuse to pay union dues.
Click to expand...

FALSE.

Nobody is forced to go into any occupation or take a job with any employer where a union exists.

And even if they do then take employment in a union shop they can decline union membership and simply pay a agency fee for the services of the union. In my experience as a public school teacher and union official we had about 100 to just under 200 members in a given year out of over 10,000 who would go the agency shop fee route.
 
Last edited:
Now this is one of the funniest things ive heard yet...Mr Superpac kroch and Adelsen Romney wants teacher contributions stopped...LMAOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I like him less every time he opens his mouth
 
Deuce said:
And for the slow: I totally agree that this creates a conflict of interest. As do corporate donations.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. That's why we should get rid of ALL donations to politicians from any entity which cannot vote in the next election for that politician's office. That means: No Unions, No Corporations, No PACS, No Foreigners, No Children, No Out-of Region Individuals. The only people who would be able to donate would be people who can vote in the next election. I would also limit the donations to $100 per OFFICE, per year. You want to donate to BOTH candidates for Senate in your state, fine. Figure out how you want to split that $100 between them and go right ahead.
 
If it weren't so detrimental for our children and the country I would find those who say the public sector unions are about people and not profits laughable. I realize that's a socialist/communist theme but it is laughable. If anyone bothered to read to comment from Gov. Romney he was referring to the teachers' unions paying off the people on the other side of the "bargaining" table.

I do realize for unions that "bargaining" and "negotiations" are euphemisms for "bribery" and "extortion" and Gov. Romney is right. I don't want my grandchildren's teachers in a union that is bribing the politicians running the school systems. The same would apply to police unions, fire unions, public health unions, and so forth.

Perhaps students need to create a for-profit student union to fight with the teachers' unions. Clearly they don't have the same interests.
 
JFK and FDR didnt think public sector employees should unionize. Are they godless republicans too?
 
OpportunityCost said:
JFK and FDR didnt think public sector employees should unionize. Are they godless republicans too?
Click to expand...

Why is that surprising?

In order to be allowed to run for the US presidency you need to be a corporate capitalist war mongering puppet.

There can be no higher democratic right exercised or freedom to associate than to join a workers union.

You need to understand that these US presidents were against ordinary workers forming unions so that they can improve their working conditions, safety, earnings and lively hood NOT elite professionals and the rich doing the same thing. I believe they prefer to call their unions associations and societies - sometimes even lobby groups.

And remember if you cannot withdraw your labour in order to improve your life, then what are you but a slave!
 
OpportunityCost said:
JFK and FDR didnt think public sector employees should unionize. Are they godless republicans too?
Click to expand...

Why is that surprising?

In order to be allowed to run for the US presidency you need to be a corporate capitalist war mongering puppet.

There can be no higher democratic right exercised or freedom to associate than to join a workers union.

You need to understand that these US presidents were against ordinary workers forming unions so that they can improve their working conditions, safety, earnings and lively hood NOT elite professionals and the rich doing the same thing. I believe they prefer to call their unions associations and societies - sometimes even lobby groups.

And remember if you cannot withdraw your labour in order to improve your life, then what are you but a slave!
 
I would have a lot less problems with all unions if every state was a right to work state. The idea of forcing people to pay union dues just to be able to work in somebody else's company is offensive to me. Right to work states have unions too--people just are not forced to join them.
 
OpportunityCost said:
JFK and FDR didnt think public sector employees should unionize. Are they godless republicans too?
Click to expand...
let's take a factual look at what you have said about JFK's objections to public sector unionization:
Fifty years ago on January 17, 1962, Federal employees first obtained the right to engage in collective bargaining through labor organizations when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, "Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Sector." Executive Order 10988 issued as result of the findings of the Task Force on Employee-Management Relations in the Federal Service, which was created by a memorandum issued to all executive department and agency heads by President Kennedy on June 22, 1961. In this memorandum the President noted that, "The participation of employees in the formation and implementation of employee policy and procedures affecting them contributes to the effective conduct of public business," and that this participation should be extended to representatives of employees and employee organizations.

The Task Force held extensive hearings and gathered evidence relating to a broad range of labor relations subjects and determined that recommendations to provide for a government wide policy granting federal employees the right to organize and bargain collectively would contribute to the effective conduct of the public business. Specifically, the Task Force report stated that:

The Task Force wishes most emphatically to endorse the President’s view that the public interest calls for strengthening of employee management relations within the Federal Government. A continuous history, going back three quarters of a century has established beyond any reasonable doubt that certain categories of Federal employees very much want to participate in the formulation of personnel policies and have established large and stable organizations for this purpose. This is not a challenge to be met so much as an opportunity to be embraced. ...
Click to expand...

which causes me to ask you for the cite(s) which prompted you to insist that JFK objected to private sector unions
 
OpportunityCost said:
JFK and FDR didnt think public sector employees should unionize. Are they godless republicans too?
Click to expand...
now let's take a factual look at what FDR had to say about public sector unions:
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
now we can see that FDR's objection was to a public sector union's ability to strike
and what we find in the FEDERAL sector is that federal employees are not allowed to strike, as was proven to the air traffic controllers 30 years ago
that inability to strike, as well as the federal sector's inability to bargain about wages, are restrictions i believe should be translated to the other public sector unionized employees
but what i see is a call by those on your side to eliminate the possibility of collective bargaining, in total. that would be inappropriate and unfortunate
 
ThePlayDrive said:
This is funny because the things that public workers often seek to accomplish through their unions benefit the public in the long term. For example, teacher's unions may fight for ensuring that every school has art, music, science lab and phys. ed. programs. This not only helps teachers, it also helps students at disadvantaged schools and in turn, the public in general. Similarly, police officers in a city like Chicago where crime has increased since Rahm Emanuel fired a bunch of police officers may fight to increase the police force as a condition of their union contract. This also helps the public.

Now, one could argue that increases in salary and strikes (which rarely happen anyway) are enough to get rid of public unions, but that's not a compelling argument because the public isn't going to look out for teachers and police officers and other public workers when the government tries to screw them over. Therefore, they need to form organizations that enable them to look out for themselves. Unions do that and unless you or other anti-public union citizens are going to fight on behalf of them and stick up for them whenever the government screws with them, then I frankly don't think you have any business telling them or any other workers how to organize.
Click to expand...

the argument against public employee unions is the potential for corruption. When they can give campaign money to a candidate who if elected can raise their pay or benefits, its bribery disguised as a union. This is not complicated.
 
Bobcat said:
the argument against public employee unions is the potential for corruption. When they can give campaign money to a candidate who if elected can raise their pay or benefits, its bribery disguised as a union. This is not complicated.
Click to expand...

right on bro.. right on ...
 
Bobcat said:
the argument against public employee unions is the potential for corruption. When they can give campaign money to a candidate who if elected can raise their pay or benefits, its bribery disguised as a union. This is not complicated.
Click to expand...
So then, do you apply the same thing to corporations, lobbyists and interest groups?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
So then, do you apply the same thing to corporations, lobbyists and interest groups?
Click to expand...

yes, I would like to see all of the bribes taken out of politics. I would like to see lobbyists banned from DC. I would like the maximum contribution to a campaign to be $10 from any person, business, union, or any other group.
 
PACS were intended to be a way for scattered voices to gather to be heard and help balance out competing corporate interests. Unfortunately money ruined the concept as the corporations take over the PACS.
 
Bobcat said:
yes, I would like to see all of the bribes taken out of politics. I would like to see lobbyists banned from DC. I would like the maximum contribution to a campaign to be $10 from any person, business, union, or any other group.
Click to expand...
Okay, even though I don't agree with you, I can sympathize with that opinion. There are certainly benefits that could come out of the system you propose.
 
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to receive campaign donations from anyone. If they want to run for office, they should be required to fund their campaign completely with their own money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom